The "Beware of Dog" sign just isn't cutting it any more in Westchester County. In a move sure to thrill letter carriers, canine criminal histories for Westchester's meanest dogs soon will be posted online at the county's first dangerous dog registry.

"This is something ... you would want your kid to know," County Executive Andrew Spano told the Journal News.

Like Megan's Law registries, which reveal the whereabouts and misdeeds of sex offenders, Westchester's site will keep tabs on which dogs have been branded as "dangerous" by a judge.

So postal workers sick of being yapped at by a dog could find out if the pooch is an actual threat - or merely a loudmouth.

Westchester's Health Department will compile the list, tracking a dog's description, possibly its name and breed, and the owner's address.

Some dog owners worry that such lists might end up targeting only certain breeds.

"What are we going to see on this list?" said Regina Massaro, a dog owner who rescues animals in Brooklyn and Queens. "Are we going to see Chihuahuas or are we going to see pit bulls?"

Animal experts also questioned how much such a list would actually be used.

"It seems to me like it would be more expedient to label the premises," said Dr. Gail Golab, a veterinarian and director of communications for the American Veterinary Medical Association. "There's quite a bit of distance between a Web site and a sign on a premise."

Westchester isn't the first county to come up with a dangerous dog list. Counties in several states, including Florida and Virginia, keep tabs on nasty dogs.

In New York City, all dog bites must be reported to the Health Department. Strays get held in a city shelter for 10 days, undergo rabies observation and are usually not put up for adoption.

But often, city strays considered to be aggressive are euthanized.

According to the American Veterinary Medical Association, more than 4.7 million Americans are bitten by dogs annually, and about 12 of those die.

Originally published on February 21, 2006

Last edited by luvmyangels on February 21st, 2006, 3:06 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Why? If a dog has a bite history, it needs to be known. Quite frankly, I think we may see the real story...that cockers, daschunds and toy poodles bite just as often as any other dog.

Although I would make it unless the breed can be confirmed it should be labeled 'unknown' or 'mix' instead of pit mix as they do now. Hell, any medium labby/houndy mix dog can be called a pit and no one questions it, but that doesn't mean it IS a pit.

dogcrazyjen wrote:Why? If a dog has a bite history, it needs to be known. Quite frankly, I think we may see the real story...that cockers, daschunds and toy poodles bite just as often as any other dog.

Who says the dogs have a bite history? This is an assumption that a lot of people make, including Westchester County Executive Andrew Spano.

Here's how the definition of "dangerous dog" in the NYS law reads, in part:

"any dog which. . .behaves in a manner which a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to one or more persons, companion animals, farm animals or domestic animals.”

In other words, dogs that have done no injury to human beings or domestic animals can [and are] found “dangerous” in New York State.

There are many, many dogs in NYS which have been declared dangerous because they chased cats, got into minor dog fights, got loose and startled the neighbors--all without biting or harming any people.

Why is it okay to make the owners of such dogs the targets of vigilantes who assume (wrongly) that their dogs really are a problem? Why is okay to value the privacy of dog owners less than the privacy of convicted felons?

Most importantly: WHY ARE WE ALLOWING POLITICIANS TO GET CHEAP PRESS COVERAGE WITHOUT ADDRESSING A REAL NEED: DOG BITE PREVENTION PROGRAMS.

Further penalizing the owners of "dangerous dogs" is too late. It will achieve very, very little. On the other hand, good dog bite prevention programs for kids have proven to be very effective.

Please, let's start calling our elected officials on this kind of crap. We don't need more down and dirty quick fixes. We need meaningful, non-discriminatory solutions.

Mahlon wrote:Here's how the definition of "dangerous dog" in the NYS law reads, in part:

"any dog which. . .behaves in a manner which a reasonable person would believe poses a serious and unjustified imminent threat of serious physical injury or death to one or more persons, companion animals, farm animals or domestic animals.”

My only problem with this is that little dogs won't be labeled dangerous because a "reasonable person" could not possibly believe that a little dog like a chi could cause "serious physical injury or death." Lots of bites, sure, but serious physical injury or death? Maybe not so much. It should just state any dog that poses a threat or has bitten someone. Something along those lines.

And I'm not stating that little dogs bite more! I'm just giving an example that big dogs will automatically be discriminated against more.

In my expirience little dogs DO bite more. They are not more inherantly dangerous, but are treated such that limits are not set and bites are more likely to occur. Also, in my expirience, little dogs are not put down for biting as often as big dogs, thus get away with multiple bites.

I have a friend whose dog has bitten her child twice in the face, and still lives out with them. If it were a big dog she would be dead now.

I realize that this is irrelevant to the idea of the data base. I was mistaken, I thought this was a bite database, which I would be approving of, provided they do not label all mixes pit mixes.